Pembina report taken out of context?
November 26, 2011
By
Scott Jamieson
Nov 26, 2011, Ottawa - Policy analysts with the Pembina Institute say that recent claims aside, their work on the role of bioenergy in Ontario is not a blanket endorsement of the GHG benefits of using forest biomass.
In an op-ed in the Atikoken Progress, the institute's Sachi Gibson explains that much depends on the type of biomass being used, its source, the nature of operations used to harvest it, and more. As a result, projects should be analyzed on a case-by-case basis as far as questions of carbon balance are concerned.
"The results of the OPG Sustainability Analysis
are not a blanket endorsement of using forest biomass for energy. While
the results suggest that it is indeed possible for biomass energy to
result in overall greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions, this is
dependent on the source of the biomass and forest management practices
at the harvest site. For example, there can be a GHG benefit to using
road-side slash that would be burned anyway. A GHG benefit is less
likely if whole trees are harvested purely as a source of biomass
energy."
The op-ed can be read here.
Print this page
